How to spot fake open access journals

Mehrpour, Saeed; Khajavi, Yaser

doi:10.1087/20140405

Cited by 23 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several of the models recommend that authors be aware of the type of copyediting and proofreading. Many spelling errors and typos are suggested to indicate a questionable journal (Beall, ; Cabells, ; Hansoti, Langdorf, & Murphy, ; Jalalian & Mahboobi, ; Mehrpour & Khajavi, ). The justification is that questionable journals pay less attention to spelling errors and typos.…”

Section: Characteristics and Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A substantial amount of the more complex models recommends that authors be aware of the composition of editorial board members. It relates to their academic status, the number of board members, their geographic location, and their contact information (Butler, ; Cabells, ; Dadkhah et al, ; Hansoti et al, ; INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative, ; Mehrpour & Khajavi, ; Olijhoek, Bjørnshauge, & Mitchell, ; Ward, ). This criterion assumes that questionable journals tend to have few board members, typically concentrated in a certain country, with little or no contact information and with low or no academic status.…”

Section: Characteristics and Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How can a questionable journal be identified: Frameworks and checklists

Frandsen

2019

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questionable journals represent an increasing problem in scholarly communication. The warnings about such journals are plentiful, but the methods used to identify them vary a great deal and make it difficult to accurately determine which journals are fraudulent or simply of low quality. This article presents an overview of the existing frameworks for identifying questionable journals and discussions around them. Most of the frameworks rely on describing the journals under investigation according to a set of criteria, and some can even be turned into a metric or mechanism. The development of frameworks for identifying questionable journals has so far been characterized by a great diversity in format, length, and content. Generally, the frameworks come with little information on development, validation, and reliability. The consequences of prolific tool development are discussed, and a recommendation for testing such frameworks is proposed.

show abstract

Section: Characteristics and Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics and Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

How can a questionable journal be identified: Frameworks and checklists

Frandsen

2019

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These publishers are either listed on Jeffrey Beall's list of potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers [26] or otherwise exhibit suspect behavior, such as not being transparent about publisher identity and location, boasting an ''unofficial'' or bogus journal impact factor [27], or falsely claiming to be indexed in PubMed. Therefore, when choosing a journal in which to publish a case report, authors should take care to avoid journals that display predatory warning signs, such as sending spam email solicitations for submissions or editorial board memberships, promising acceptance decisions within a time period that is too short for careful peer review, lacking a named editor-in-chief with academic credentials, having a website riddled with grammatical errors and broken links, and publishing articles that have not been professionally typeset [27,28].…”

Section: Authors Beware: Case Reports Journals With Questionable Publmentioning

confidence: 99%

New journals for publishing medical case reports

Akers

2016

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because they do not rank highly in the hierarchy of evidence and are not frequently cited, case reports describing the clinical circumstances of single patients are seldom published by medical journals. However, many clinicians argue that case reports have significant educational value, advance medical knowledge, and complement evidence-based medicine. Over the last several years, a vast number (~160) of new peer-reviewed journals have emerged that focus on publishing case reports. These journals are typically open access and have relatively high acceptance rates. However, approximately half of the publishers of case reports journals engage in questionable or ‘‘predatory’’ publishing practices. Authors of case reports may benefit from greater awareness of these new publication venues as well as an ability to discriminate between reputable and non-reputable journal publishers.

show abstract

“…7 These requirements are meant to help authors discern true scholarly open access journals from the growing number of fake journals that seek to exploit them for article charges without producing a quality publication. 8 …”

Section: Selection Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%